The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Sunshine]

You're killing me here. What are we talking about? What/what defensive wounds?

I'm saying Z did not have defensive wounds worthy of killing somebody.

Just because someone defends themselves well enough to avoid being injured...doesn't mean they weren't defending themselves.

In fact, that is my goal in self-defense...to NOT get hurt.

George Zimmerman Head Injury | Zimmerman Injuries | Photos | Mediaite


SS

 

[testarosa]

I like this guy.

KEEPER.

 

[Sunshine]

I'm saying Z did not have defensive wounds worthy of killing somebody.

I don't believe an inch wound or a leg chopped off makes a difference, it's more about perceived threat.

Grey area.

And that's why have that thing called a "trial".

Sort of like masturbation?

IOU a neg in <30 min.

 

[testarosa]

I'm saying Z did not have defensive wounds worthy of killing somebody.

Just because someone defends themselves well enough to avoid being injured...doesn't mean they weren't defending themselves.

In fact, that is my goal in self-defense...to NOT get hurt.

George Zimmerman Head Injury | Zimmerman Injuries | Photos | Mediaite


SS

What Koosh said is true... If I have my gun with me, I'm damn sure shooting you before I get any marks on me. lol That's the point.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's incorrect... Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Provided that the State can prove that GZ shot TM (a fact that I don't think is in question), the burden of proof is indeed on the accused to prove it was an act of self-defense.

True that following someone isn't a crime, neither is carrying a gun... But the two are axiomatic of someone who was looking for a confrontation. This is why I believe it will be so difficult for the defendant to sell self-defense to a jury.

Remember, it is not carrying a gun, disobeying police orders, nor following an individual that he's charged with, so it's probably not useful to point out that those acts are not illegal.

I'm sorry, it is true, at least in Florida. Once the defendant asserts self defense, the burden shifts to the state to prove it was not:

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self defense,
the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant.

That's unusual, I've never before heard of such a phenomenon... But there has to be more to it. By that logic anyone who shoots anyone else could simply state "He was going to hit me" or even "I thought he was going to hit me." Both would fall within the broad range described above, and have an objective veracity that is nearly impossible to "Disprove."

There is.

It's not just that the defendent used self-defense, but that self-defense is a justifiable exclusion under the law. For example, under Florida Statutes the aggressor is considered to lose the self-defense claim for some situations and in others get's it back only under certain types of conditions.


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

 

[Sunshine]

I would ask him, "When you confronted Trayvon Martin, what exactly did you do and say?"

Then, he will lie his ass off.

Well, I think for the purpose of this exercise we are assuming we will get an honest answer.

See, my question is tricky, because I don't know for sure that Zimmerman confronted Martin. But I think he did, so I just make that assumption and ask the rest of my question. Otherwise, i would have to ask two questions.

I suppose I could just ask, "Did you confront Martin?" But I'm pretty sure he did and I'm more interested in the manner in which he confronted the kid. I know, if it was me out there being stalked, I'd consider the guy walking up to me as an attack and go into self-defense mode. Which I suspect is exactly what Martin did. And sometimes the best defense is offense, doesn't make it wrong.

His lawyer would tell him not to answer that question. And if it were asked in court there would be an objection.


SS

 

[testarosa]

OMG. EVERYBODY they're questioning knows EVERYTHING about this case.

It's the way. it. is.

Roll the dice.

 

[Cuyo]

Oh thats right....burden is on prosecution...shoe is on other foot....lol. I wouldnt want the burden of trying to prove it wasnt in self defense.

That's incorrect... Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Provided that the State can prove that GZ shot TM (a fact that I don't think is in question), the burden of proof is indeed on the accused to prove it was an act of self-defense.

True that following someone isn't a crime, neither is carrying a gun... But the two are axiomatic of someone who was looking for a confrontation. This is why I believe it will be so difficult for the defendant to sell self-defense to a jury.

Remember, it is not carrying a gun, disobeying police orders, nor following an individual that he's charged with, so it's probably not useful to point out that those acts are not illegal.

It's clear you picked up a big word 'affirmative defense' and still don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a criminal trial. In a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the state, and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense.[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.[citation needed]

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.[4]

Well I do concur that one of us doesn't know what they're talking about... Enlighten me as to who the "he" is referred to in the bolded portion above?

 

[Sunshine]

That's incorrect... Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Provided that the State can prove that GZ shot TM (a fact that I don't think is in question), the burden of proof is indeed on the accused to prove it was an act of self-defense.

True that following someone isn't a crime, neither is carrying a gun... But the two are axiomatic of someone who was looking for a confrontation. This is why I believe it will be so difficult for the defendant to sell self-defense to a jury.

Remember, it is not carrying a gun, disobeying police orders, nor following an individual that he's charged with, so it's probably not useful to point out that those acts are not illegal.

It's clear you picked up a big word 'affirmative defense' and still don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a criminal trial. In a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the state, and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense.[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.[citation needed]

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.[4]

Well I do concur that one of us doesn't know what they're talking about... Enlighten me as to who the "he" is referred to in the bolded portion above?

Given that you can't seem to even get the use of the quote feature down, a most simple task, I'd say that you haven't gotten much else right either.



There, I fixed it for you.

SS

 

[Cuyo]

It's clear you picked up a big word 'affirmative defense' and still don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a criminal trial. In a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the state, and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense.[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.[citation needed]

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.[4]

Well I do concur that one of us doesn't know what they're talking about... Enlighten me as to who the "he" is referred to in the bolded portion above?

Given that you can't seem to even get the use of the quote feature down, a most simple task, I'd say that you haven't gotten much else right either.



There, I fixed it for you.

SS

There ya go... I Guess ya got me.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I'm saying Z did not have defensive wounds worthy of killing somebody.

Just because someone defends themselves well enough to avoid being injured...doesn't mean they weren't defending themselves.

In fact, that is my goal in self-defense...to NOT get hurt.

George Zimmerman Head Injury | Zimmerman Injuries | Photos | Mediaite


SS

What a ridiculous photo. Head wounds bleed a lot. Even the smallest head wound will produce a lot of blood. Why didn't they wash the blood off and then take a picture so we could see the actual wounds? I KNOW why. Because they wanted the picture to be as dramatic as possible.

Doesn't matter if Zimmerman had head wounds, anyway. If some stalker approaches me in the night and in the process of defending myself from him I manage to knock him down and he gets injured, that doesn't mean I wasn't defending myself.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Just because someone defends themselves well enough to avoid being injured...doesn't mean they weren't defending themselves.

In fact, that is my goal in self-defense...to NOT get hurt.

George Zimmerman Head Injury | Zimmerman Injuries | Photos | Mediaite


SS

What Koosh said is true... If I have my gun with me, I'm damn sure shooting you before I get any marks on me. lol That's the point.

Actually, MY point is that just because Trayvon Martin didn't have any defensive wounds doesn't mean he wasn't defending himself. It has nothing to do with guns, really.

 

[testarosa]

George Zimmerman Head Injury | Zimmerman Injuries | Photos | Mediaite


SS

What Koosh said is true... If I have my gun with me, I'm damn sure shooting you before I get any marks on me. lol That's the point.

Actually, MY point is that just because Trayvon Martin didn't have any defensive wounds doesn't mean he wasn't defending himself. It has nothing to do with guns, really.

I could have used "my big rock with me" just as easily.

 

[testarosa]

Rut-roh.

Juror on the hot seat with the judge.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Then, he will lie his ass off.

Well, I think for the purpose of this exercise we are assuming we will get an honest answer.

See, my question is tricky, because I don't know for sure that Zimmerman confronted Martin. But I think he did, so I just make that assumption and ask the rest of my question. Otherwise, i would have to ask two questions.

I suppose I could just ask, "Did you confront Martin?" But I'm pretty sure he did and I'm more interested in the manner in which he confronted the kid. I know, if it was me out there being stalked, I'd consider the guy walking up to me as an attack and go into self-defense mode. Which I suspect is exactly what Martin did. And sometimes the best defense is offense, doesn't make it wrong.

His lawyer would tell him not to answer that question. And if it were asked in court there would be an objection.


SS

Who said anything about fucking lawyers or courtrooms? We were asked if WE could ask Zimmerman any question, what it would be. That's what I would ask him.

 

[testarosa]

Note to self: don't post your opinion all over your FB and Twitter and then say you don't have an opinion under oath.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

What Koosh said is true... If I have my gun with me, I'm damn sure shooting you before I get any marks on me. lol That's the point.

Actually, MY point is that just because Trayvon Martin didn't have any defensive wounds doesn't mean he wasn't defending himself. It has nothing to do with guns, really.

I could have used "my big rock with me" just as easily.

Right. I think we're agreeing with each other.

Self-defense does not necessarily result in defensive wounds! Not if you're really good at it, anyway. : ) And if someone is stalking you late at night, you're probably going to prepare yourself for battle. Pick up a rock, a stick, whatever. Or if you have a gun, pull it out.

Makes me wonder if Zimmerman approached the kid with his gun drawn, and the kid reacted by tackling Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, jumped on top of him, but Zimmerman managed to hold onto the gun and shot the kid.

That sounds like a likely scenario to me. Poor kid.

And I'm sick of Zimmerman's wide-eyed, frightened look in all the pictures I'm seeing. Fucker.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I don't believe an inch wound or a leg chopped off makes a difference, it's more about perceived threat.

Grey area.

And that's why have that thing called a "trial".

Sort of like masturbation?

IOU a neg in <30 min.

You know what, fuck you and your neg rep. Okay, I was at rep power 317 when I posted this, let's see what happens after I dare to challenge the mighty Sunshine.

 

[SantaFeWay]

Getting the feeling these potential jurors, rather than lying to get onto the jury, are feeling as though they must demonstrate how unbiased they are in general. I think the politically correct thing to say regarding this case is that no one's made up their mind; no one thinks there's a racial component; no one wants to admit they've come to a conclusion based on all the coverage. It seems 99% of these people are completely benign, open-minded, and non-judgmental. Is this about Sanford or Stepford?

 

[testarosa]

Getting the feeling these potential jurors, rather than lying to get onto the jury, are feeling as though they must demonstrate how unbiased they are in general. I think the politically correct thing to say regarding this case is that no one's made up their mind; no one thinks there's a racial component; no one wants to admit they've come to a conclusion based on all the coverage. It seems 99% of these people are completely benign, open-minded, and non-judgmental. Is this about Sanford or Stepford?

Yep. This is an exercise in.... I don't even know what. They're chasing their tail around with this.

Seriously, I'd have thrown my hands up by now and gone eenie meenie minee moe.

Did you catch the last guy that went on forever and then the judge asked him if that was his post (on computer)?